On 10/19/2014 4:55 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

Barry, you have picked up this rather annoying habit, I presume, from Michael, that every discussion must have an anti TM component to it, and preferably impugn MMY in some way.

>

You are unaware of this, obviously, because most of your posts are rote responses with a small, dick.

"We are talking about _/dick size/_, but the real issue is that you are a cult apologist".

"I want to comment about dick-waving, but you realize that MMY was a con man".

"I saw this Phillip K. Dick movie the other day, and it reminded me of all the small minded people on FFL".
>

This is pretty much the daily fare of Turquoise B.  (-:
>




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief.

That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof.

It doesn't, and never will.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons.

 I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs.

Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, "I believe that the writer hates his father", I will say "show me the supporting evidence for that belief." It will not be OK for the child to say "It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on." This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention.

The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap.

"You are a witch"
"No I am not"
"Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive."

Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing.

Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story,

So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons.

One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, "boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work" When you give him the stink face he says, "prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not, so prove to me that it will not work, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my belief."

Do you have to hold a positive belief that it will not work or even prove that is will not work or can you just say," I don't accept your reasons for your belief, so hand over some pain meds with better reasons to believe that they will work than: I read it somewhere."

No one is claiming they don't believe in anything. But distinguishing beliefs with good supporting evidence from those that do not is a fundamental skill for educated people. Even in the elementary school curriculum. But the sad fact is that society has bought into religious beliefs as a class of protected beliefs where it is wrong to use the same thinking tools we use in literally every other area of our life.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

Ann,

Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a "believer" is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a "believer".

Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative?

I know and it is very random. Because every single human being on this planet has hundreds if not thousands of beliefs that they act on every day of their lives. Beliefs are not something you can not change in an instant nor do they necessarily result in death, dismemberment or fatal disease. Often they are very private things that undergo constant revision in the mind of the believer or non believer. It is as easy to change one's mind (belief set) as it is to sneeze. It is not beliefs that are dangerous it is what someone does with the belief just as it is an exercise in futility to go around poo pooing other's beliefs in an effort to do - what? Change them? Mock them? Show the believer how superior you are in your alternate beliefs? Those who claim they don't believe in anything are like those who claim they don't need a solid surface to occasionally stand upright on.







Reply via email to